It appears as if I was the only one who left the house to go trick or treating last night! A veritable flurry of activity in this thread . . . and such entertainment!

Fat Elvis - in the end, I think I am pretty close to your opinion on the trade, in that both teams got what they wanted at the time. Especially with the consideration that Boston was not ready to re-sign him and get rid of other key pieces, so they did get good value at the time for him - and the value increased with the Leafs finishing so badly the next year.

I do differ on the whole "who was winning the trade timeline", up until the current time, but it's a minor point really.

Andyhack - I will continue to rail against this point about Seguin's one game being the trump card in this deal. If the Leafs had been a contending team in the playoffs any of these years and Seguin had outperformed him - different story, I would then concede that point. Bu until that time . . . it's a team accomplishment to have put the player in that position in the first place (especially so considering Seguin was a benchwarmer before his bog game). One can easily assume that Kessel might have some kind of decent impact on a playoff team in the playoffs . . . but again, until we see Phil the thrill in the playoffs to compare value, it's a moot point.

Crock-o-shight:Very entertaining post. And I realise you did go juuuust a bit overboard in your admiration of where Kessel's game has gone lately . . . but a lot of it comes from a recent trend that is developing into more of a "new-look" Phil that many posters here might not realise.

To whit - he has improved immensely in his defensive game. Like, for me as a Leafs fan . . . it's night and day. No, he is not even close to the best defensive forwards . . . but he is better than average for offensive stars, that is for sure. Earlier, I would have said Phil was well below average . .. but starting from about mid season last year, there has been remarkable improvement.

And the funny thing is, alongside that new defensive part to his game . . . his offensive numbers have all gone up (from that time). Coincidence? I think not, myself.

Now, I won't gush like you about his newfound more complete game like you might . . . but I do recognise that it's a big difference from where he started at with Toronto and in Boston.

I certainly hope to see it continue on for a full season and beyond, but we'll have to wait and see.

To tell you the truth . . . I also need to see more of Seguin this year to get a good idea of where his game is progressing.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Edited by - slozo on 11/01/2011 05:34:54

Guest2218 ( )

Posted - 11/01/2011 : 09:42:59

One of the earlier posts said that Boston won the trade because they won a Stanley Cup, and that's hard to argue against. I primarily agree with that, but allow me to give another more extreme example: who won the trade when Calgary traded Brett Hull to St. Louis? Hull went on to super-stardom, while Calgary won the Stanley Cup.

One of the earlier posts said that Boston won the trade because they won a Stanley Cup, and that's hard to argue against. I primarily agree with that, but allow me to give another more extreme example: who won the trade when Calgary traded Brett Hull to St. Louis? Hull went on to super-stardom, while Calgary won the Stanley Cup.

According to Andyhack and some others, the cup is the ultimate goal and thus Calgary would be the winner of that trade. And thus Rick Wamsley and Rob Ramage were better to have then Brett Hull.To be more realistic and make a comparison to the Kessel deal, Kessel would have to become an superstar like Brett Hull did to make this deal a win for Leafs, the same as Brett Hull did when traded to St. Louis and paired with Adam Oates. I think if that were to happen then nobody would question who won the deal. The chances of Kessel being like Hull, well I will let others figure that out.

See, this is where i disagree with the whole "Bruins won the cup, therefore they won the trade". IMO, that's nonsense. What if, yes i'm sorry, it's another "what if", Sequin hadn't played at all in the playoffs and Boston still won? Or, let's say Sequin didn't have that one game where he was a standout? Even without these things, i still think they won the trade!

Had Kessel been dealt to the Leafs at the deadline and the Leafs were in a position to make a cup run, AND Kessel put them over the top and they won it (oh god, could you imagine?), then, maybe then, i'd say the Leafs won the trade.

Hey Chop, with your comparison to the Hull trade you are saying that Kessel would have to turn out to be a Hull type player or acheive Hull like success for this trade to be called a Leaf win. Did I get that right?? If so, I don't think that is the entire story. To be compared to that trade one would also have to say that Seguin, Knight, and Hamilton would have to perform similarly to Ramage and Wamsley. If they turn out to be better, the trade is not comparable.

I think a more comparable trade would be the Lindros deal. Before the Leaf fans just all over me, I am not comparing the value of Lindros to Kessel or the value of the Boston kids to the Colorado kids. Philly gave up far more for Lindros than the Leafs did for Kessel at the same time Lindros was a far better player than I think Kessel ever will be. However, it is comparable in the way that Philly traded for a player and gave up draft picks. Most have considered this a bad trade for Philly and most rank the Lindros deal as one of the most lopsided trades in NHL history. Philly got what they needed but knowing who those draft picks became it is arguable that Philly would not make that trade.

Does that last statement sound familiar?? In that sense, the Lindros deal and the Kessel deal are comparable.

Beans all I was trying to do was put the Kessel trade in some sort of perspective in comparison to the Hull trade that the guest brought up. My point being that for the Kessel trade to compare to that particular trade then Kessel would have to turn out to be similar player as Hull. But I see the guests point that Hull clearly was a steal for St. Louis but Calgary wins the cup 2 years later so really who is the winner of the trade.

I too actually agree that Lindros trade would be a closer comparison of the Kessel deal. If Seguin has near the impact that Forsberg had in Colorado then the Kessel trade would certainly rank in the top 3 worst deals of all time. Right up there with Courtnall for Kordic. Oh that was another Leaf deal, crap.

IMHO, the reason the Bruin's cup win is relevant is only due to the fact that trading Kessel was something they had to do, they wouldn't pay him and disrupt the current team, even though he was their leading goal scorer the season before. Whether or not Seguin even played, has no bearing. He is/was a high quality draft pick, received as part of the trade, along with 2 other solid prospects. Chiarelli made the trade to continue to build his team in what proved to be the correct direction, and got more than adequate compensation for Kessel.

Toronto got what Burke wanted, a goal scorer. Win Win. Just a little more win for Boston as the grail proves.

We can even use the Hull example to further support my view. Hull, at the time was a progressing solid player, near a PPG, but did not mesh well with Terry Crisp. I don't think anyone in the hockey world at the time foresaw what he would become. They traded him to keep the peace, and won a Stanley Cup, that may not have happened had he stayed, who knows. Another Win Win for Calgary/St Louis, with again, just a little more of a win for Calgary, at that particular time.

It's not so much about which player for which player as it is about what worked better for the teams involved, and in both cases, all the teams got what they wanted, but only 2 of them have Cups to show for it. That has to give a slight nod at least to the cup winners.

quote:Originally posted by Porkchop73According to Andyhack and some others, the cup is the ultimate goal and thus Calgary would be the winner of that trade. And thus Rick Wamsley and Rob Ramage were better to have then Brett Hull.

Gotta run now, but this is a gross misrepresentation of what I am saying. At first glance I see at least three significant ways that this needs to be reworded to more accurately represent my point.

Both teams received a great player in the deal Open Ice. Thats the only point i`ve been trying to portray all along. I just can`t agree with any1 who claims the leafs were big time losers at the time this trade was made. You just simply don`t receive players with star potential for nothing.

I seriously don`t think there was a clear winner or loser in this trade. Toronto sucked at the time of this trade, they had NOTHING !!!.Kessel brought some new hope and exictment to a team with no direction and which was clearly going nowhere.

At least by bringing in kessel Burke had 1 building block to work with, before the trade he was swimming in mediocrity.

As to if one ends up with 5 - 10 points more than the other at seasons end...who cares ??

As to the point of 1 team winning a stanley cup already. It takes an whole team with a very hot goaltender to win the stanley cup....not just 1 player.....Boston was well poised to push for the cup before they received Seguin. If anything the kessel deal hurt their chances of winning the cup...but their team was so strong they didn`t even need him...As with most other cup winners ( Tim Thomas ) their goaltender was spectacular.

Guest9898 ( )

Posted - 11/02/2011 : 19:36:22

quote:Originally posted by The Duke1. Boston was well poised to push for the cup before they received Seguin. 2. If anything the kessel deal hurt their chances of winning the cup...3. but their team was so strong they didn`t even need him...4. As with most other cup winners ( Tim Thomas ) their goaltender was spectacular.

Holy contradictory Batman. All in one paragraph. Amazing.

Let's break this down shall we? Noticed how I numbered each section for ease of reference. So 1, 3 and 4 says Boston didn't need Kessel to win the cup. Then suddenly 2 comes along and says they needed him to better their chances. What the?

I actually understand completely what Duke said. I don't see it in the same contradictory way really. Let's face it, Seguin had 1 great game, Kessel likely would have contributed more in the overall playoff picture. Sure, this is a guess, but i'd say a perennial 30+ goal scorer, or as some Leaf fans say "an elite level sniper with 40+ goal capabilities, would have contributed more.

Not too many people know this, but after three straight 7th game losses in 2008, 2009 and 2010, Peter Chiarelli was starting to get really paranoid about a vast anti-Boston conspiracy by certain left wing, right wing and center elements in the NHL, so a la Nixon, he started taping all his telephone calls. Here, for the first time, is the tape he made of the call to Brian Burke that ended with the trade.

We start midway through because, mysteriously, the first 18.5 minutes are missing. It is rumored that Chiarelli deleted this part after Boston won the Cup, thinking it might be in his best interests to remove certain comments like "childish and logically f**8ed up" to describe how unimportant a player's contribution to winning a Cup should be in an analysis of a trade.

BB: Pete, I'm telling you again, you guys might just win the Cup in a few years with the future prospects that would come with this deal!

PC: Bri, for the last time, CUP SMUP, we are talking about a 30, 40, 50 maybe even 60 goal scorer here! Like the guy is "elite" with a capital E. Heck, word on the Freedom Trail here in Beantown is that Phil might be another Marcel Dionne!!!!!!! And on the Causeway there is talk of Brett Hull's 72 goal season being well within reach for Phil, and not only that, they're even saying Hull's 86 goal season is not an unreasonable forecast!

BB: But Charsy baby, if we slump in the standings, you might get like one of the top picks overall!

PC: Burky Burky Burky. Come on, you know that Daigle type stories are by far the rule when it comes to high picks. I mean, when do top draft picks ever really pan out?

BB: Well, just here in Boston alone, Bourque, Thor...

PC: Ahhhhh, I'd rather have Marcel Dionne!

BB: Wasn't he a high draft pick too?

PC: Don't go getting logical on me Bri! Throw me at least another 1st round pick, not that it will mean all that much as you guys are likely going to skyrocket in the standings and be like the Leafs of the, of the, well you know, when that Gilmour guy was there.

BB: Come on Pistol Pete, two 1st round draft picks? You know, we could spiral in the standings too. I mean, we are the Leafs!

PC: Yeah, but even if we get really lucky with the 2 picks, what would you rather have, two superstars or one Marcel?

BB: (a tad confused by that last comment) Hmmmmmm...

PC: Yeah, two first rounders just ain't enough for a guaranteed future Hall of Famer like Phil.

BB: If I also give you a second rounder, would that do it for you? Remember, the top one might even play next year. And, who knows, he could even contribute a bit to your team!

PC: Team, Spleen! I'm talking Marcel frigg'n Dionne and Brett frigg'n Hull here!!!!!!!! 40, 50, 60, 70 goals a year, year in and year out. Man, take your contributions and your teams and your Cups and dump them in the Mystic River where they belong - you know, where Harold Ballard is swimming with them fishes. You can have that nonsense. I'm parting with Marcel here, the 5th leading point getter in NHL history, even if we do get some of those, errrr, what you call em, Cup things.

BB: Even with three draft picks, one of whom, who knows, could even be better than Marcel in some ways? By the way, you do know that his real name is Phil, right?

PC: Mar..., Brett,... I mean, Phil, is our man Burkster, even though our coach actually can't stand him, his plus-minus is not exactly where we want it, he's not really a Bruin type guy, and in any case, it's impossible for us to keep him. (awkward pause......) Ooops, probably shouldn't have said that last one, as an adept GM would know that he's got me by the short and curlies.

BB: You realize I'm here, right?

PC: Yes. (long pause..............................) Hmmm, anyway, the only way I make this trade is if you can guarantee for me that Brett, I mean Phil, does not score 80 goals one year.

BB: Well I can't "guarantee" that, but I can say in this day and age the chances are verrrrrrrrrrrrrry slim.

PC: Not good enough BB. I need a guarantee. Don't you think Cliff Fletcher would trade his '89 Cup with the Flames in a second for all those outstanding years Brett Hull put up in St. Louis?

BB: Well, yes, if you are asking Cliff now in 2011 and not in November of 1989, and it might be helpful if you are also telling Cliff that he definitely gets the Cup with Brett in that scenario.

PC: You know I can't say that for sure about the Cup. Who knows what would have happened? But it goes without saying that if you have a scoring machine on your team, it's a good thing. Don't you think Cliff would agree?

BB: Cliff might very well agree, yes, as Brett was a hellofa goal scorer, a special guy in history that way. But Cliff would probably feel better with a guarantee about a Cup. And remember, no matter how bad one argues that trade was for Calgary, Robby Ramage did contribute solidly to that '89 Cup and that point should, at the very least, not be totally forgotten.

PC: There you go again with Cup, Cup, Cup. As great as that trade turned out for St. Louis, you know darn well that the only thing we know 100% absolutely for frikk'n sure about the Cup regarding that particular trade is that the 1989 Flames won it, and that they did it without Brett Hull and with Rob Ramage (awkward silence as both guys contemplate this statement).

BB: Anyway, Petester, let me paint you a pretty picture. It's a key game in your Bs drive for the Cup next year, but they're struggling and suffering some key injuries up front. The top draft pick you get comes out of nowhere and has a great, hell, Marcel Dionne-like game, and rescues the Bs who might otherwise have been all but done. After that game your Bs go on to win the Cup! Sure, overall mainly through major contribitions of the others, but there can be no doubting the fact that your new youngster helped out at a very key moment in a very big way. And this is just in the first year after the trade! I know it's unrealistic, but you never know, right PC? Now ain't that a pretty picture?

PC: (short pause) Naaaaaaaaaah, doesn't do much for me. Need the guarantee about Wayne, I mean Brett, I mean Marc, aaaah crap, what's his name again - oh yeah Phil, and the not scoring 80 goals thing.

BB: Geeeeez Petey, doesn't my Cup story do a thing for ya?

PC: Naaaaaaah, cause Phil DEFINITELY would do the exact same thing in that key playoff game as your draft pick. And that's a fact! And actually, if Phil is with us, we don't even need that clutch performance. I mean, we are the powerhouse Boston Bruins. We're like the Habs of the 70s! Did they ever need a huge performance from their leading scorer?

BB: (again confused) What about 1979 when Guy...

PC: (interupts) Anyway, I need that guarantee Brisky.

BB: Wow, Peterino, you're one tough negotiator! But okay, what the hell. You have my guarantee. Phil Kessel will never score 80 goals in a season as a Maple Leaf!

PC: (huge smile) Really? You swear?

BB: I swear.

- the two shake hands (virtually, via skype)

PC: Deal - Ahhhhh, thanks Burkerola. I needed that guarantee, because no matter how many Cups this deal brings to Boston I don't want to be known as the "Guy who let an 80 goal scorer get away."

BB: Very logical and sound thinking there Peterama.

PC: And very clever move by you Big Bad Burkeman. You know what the great Sam Pollock said, "He who gets the best player in a trade wins the trade, regardless of whether that player does s*&t all for him in getting a Cup."

BB: Ahhhh the great Sam Pollack. (contemplatively) Hmmmmmmmm, probably wouldn't have approved of me giving all those draft picks though?

PC: (suddenly a lot more serious than he has been til now) No he wouldn't have Brian. No he wouldn't have.

BB: Hmmm, probably wouldn't dismiss the value of that Cup scenario I just painted for you in analyzing this trade one day if that scenario does in fact happen?

PC: No he wouldn't Brian. No he wouldn't.

BB: Probably wouldn't have given up so much knowing you basically gotta get rid of Phil one way or the other soon.

The trade helped Boston in two ways last year. First it provided them with the player that single handedly won game 5 vs Tampa last year and thus enabled the Bruins to go on and win the cup.

It also prevented a very poor defensive player from being on the ice like he was in overtime against Carolina two years previously and arguably cost the bruins that series. Who knows with Kessels defensive play, the Bruins may never have gotton by Montreal in the first round.

The trade helped Boston in two ways last year. First it provided them with the player that single handedly won game 5 vs Tampa last year and thus enabled the Bruins to go on and win the cup.

It also prevented a very poor defensive player from being on the ice like he was in overtime against Carolina two years previously and arguably cost the bruins that series. Who knows with Kessels defensive play, the Bruins may never have gotton by Montreal in the first round.

hahaa Kessel would have been on the ice instead of Horton in game seven ot and maybe the game winner doesn`t get scored hahaha

Yup, it's been a week, and Phil Kessel is still leading the league in scoring. Points in every game this season except one. A Fantasy Poolies wet dream. I still got my Kesselrection here. Thank you for noticing Fat Elvis. :)

There are three things that jump out at me:

A. Many of us have expressed our exaltation at having Kessel in our pools. Congratulations to everyone including Beans and his wife for picking him up.

I believe he was taken an average of 60th overall in fantasy pools across the country. It sounds kind of crazy in hindsight. He was chosen in our pool in the same round as: J. Pavelski, T. Hall, M. Green, D. Briere, J. Franzen, M. Havlat.

Fools.

B.Doesn't this trade remind you of the Joe Thornton trade? A great player for three players. I remember thinking, "Yeah, Joe Thornton is great and everything. But three players for one? It doesn't really make sense to me..." Well, yeah. We all know how that turned out.

Is it the same thing? No, but that's only because Seguin is involved. If we take Seguin out of this equation - and replace him with say Erik Gundbranson (the pick right behind Seguin in 2010). Well, I don't even think we'd be talking right now. Seguin is the point here. If the Leafs finished higher up; if they hadn't won the lottery. If the Bruins hadn't picked correctly. Many Ifs. The Bruins won a key coin toss here. If not, then the Leafs win that trade hands down.

There is a big HOWEVER here. (I can hear the Bruins fans screaming right now). Yes, a high draft pick often does yield a big player. Jeff Skinner was taken 7th overall in that same draft for example. So, there is a huge value to a high first-round draft pick, certainly.

Burke gambled, and hoped that his team finished out of the bottom four. Chiarelli gambled and hoped that the Leafs finished in the bottom four. Chiarelli won the coin toss, got Seguin, and now we have created a 7-page forum monster that will go down as the best thread in all of pickuphockey history.

I believe that this trade was therefore a tie. Both teams gambled, and although The Bruins won the coin toss for Seguin, The Leafs got who they wanted.

C.I keep hearing that Phil Kessel is "streaky", "inconsistent" and "doesn't backcheck". Do the people writing these things even watch hockey? Phil Kessel has at least one point in something like 23 of his last 25 games dating back to last season. I'm going to call that "consistent". Like, a point a game player. Pretty much as consistent as you get. I'm not sure how that stigma got attached to Kessel. No one ever claimed Joe Thornton to be "streaky"; but he goes long stretches without points. If anything, I'd say Kessel is "not streaky". He doesn't often have the massive "stat-padding" 4 point games like Jumbo Joe. He gets 1, or 2 points, in pretty much every game he plays. Consistent.

Also, he has three straight 30 goal seasons. If he isn't "consistent", then who is? When does one become a "consistent" player? Which player is more consistent than Phil Kessel?

Back-checking. Kessel back-checks. Does anyone have any evidence of Kessel NOT back-checking? Where did this become a stereotype? I've seen him skate his ass off back into the odd man rush. He backchecks. Like, why do you say he doesn't back-check? Don't forget also that Kessel is a winger. His job is to cover the point men and be ready for break-outs. He does that extremely well. He plays his position very well.

Saucer Passes. Again, you're not giving Phil Kessel enough credit. Phil Kessel is one of the best saucer passers in the league. Tomas Plekanec is probably the best; but Phil Kessel is right there with him. Watch him on 3-on-2 and 2-on-2 rushes. He is an expert at finding the soft-spot in the offensive zone, and saucering a pass over to the trailer with speed. Phaneuf will tell you all about it.

Yes Fat Elvis. I have a Kesselection. I have him in my pool too of course.

To summarize, I think people aren't giving Kessel enough credit here. The overwhelming mood seems to be "oh well, he's just streaky, and he's going to slow down. Boston rules." But, have you been watching the games?? Sure, he's on a tear, and yes he will slow down slightly. But, he won't go "ten games without a point" as suggested by the peanut gallery here. He's not going to "drop off the face of the earth". He'll probably finish with 35 goals and 70 points - with a possibility of 80 points in the year. That's a strong player - forgot about my one-handed typing.

Don't forget also that Kessel is 24-years-old. I don't think we are talking about a flash-in-the-pan type of player here. He has a massive career ahead of him. Give the guy some credit. Kessel is a great player. I would love to have him on my team.

So? Why are we still talking about this? Can we talk about the Oilers now?

Kessel brought some new hope and exictment to a team with no direction and which was clearly going nowhere.

Seguin or Hall could have done that for the Leafs. A centerman is almost always more valued than a winger.

Guest2752 ( )

Posted - 11/04/2011 : 12:26:03

Ill be honest I havn't watched much of Kessel since he got traded to Toronto, but check out some of the games he played for Boston. This guy never backchecked and for that was constantly in Juliens doghouse. I can recall numerous games were Julien benched him.

I remember being a bit upset when they traded him but to Juliens credit he stuck to his guns and had a part in his departure from Boston.The defence first mentality paid off in the Bruins Stanley cup championship and the draft picks couldn't have worked out better for Boston.

Kessel will get you 30 to 40 goals, but the question is will those goals get Toronto anything. Time will tell.

Yup, it's been a week, and Phil Kessel is still leading the league in scoring. Points in every game this season except one. A Fantasy Poolies wet dream. I still got my Kesselrection here. Thank you for noticing Fat Elvis. :)

There are three things that jump out at me:

A. Many of us have expressed our exaltation at having Kessel in our pools. Congratulations to everyone including Beans and his wife for picking him up.

I believe he was taken an average of 60th overall in fantasy pools across the country. It sounds kind of crazy in hindsight. He was chosen in our pool in the same round as: J. Pavelski, T. Hall, M. Green, D. Briere, J. Franzen, M. Havlat.

Fools.

So, he was picked around the same time as those guys, making everyone in your pool "fools"? So, you're a fool too then? Is that what you're implying? How do you know that your fellow poolsters didn't have him pegged for their next pick? And, i can tell you this much, a few of those guys you say he was drafted near, were pegged to have better years than him by 90% of the so called "experts".

quote:Originally posted by CrockOShight

B.Doesn't this trade remind you of the Joe Thornton trade? A great player for three players. I remember thinking, "Yeah, Joe Thornton is great and everything. But three players for one? It doesn't really make sense to me..." Well, yeah. We all know how that turned out.

So, are you saying that Boston won the trade and / or the cup last year because they picked up the trio of Marco Sturm, Wayne Primeau and Brad Stuart?

quote:Originally posted by CrockOShight

Is it the same thing? No, but that's only because Seguin is involved. If we take Seguin out of this equation - and replace him with say Erik Gundbranson (the pick right behind Seguin in 2010). Well, I don't even think we'd be talking right now. Seguin is the point here. If the Leafs finished higher up; if they hadn't won the lottery. If the Bruins hadn't picked correctly. Many Ifs. The Bruins won a key coin toss here. If not, then the Leafs win that trade hands down.

Yeah, great, another "what if". Here's one for ya, take Kessel out of this equation and replace him with say Chuck Kobasew and, well, i think you see my point.

quote:Originally posted by CrockOShight

There is a big HOWEVER here. (I can hear the Bruins fans screaming right now). Yes, a high draft pick often does yield a big player. Jeff Skinner was taken 7th overall in that same draft for example. So, there is a huge value to a high first-round draft pick, certainly.

Burke gambled, and hoped that his team finished out of the bottom four. Chiarelli gambled and hoped that the Leafs finished in the bottom four. Chiarelli won the coin toss, got Seguin, and now we have created a 7-page forum monster that will go down as the best thread in all of pickuphockey history.

I believe that this trade was therefore a tie. Both teams gambled, and although The Bruins won the coin toss for Seguin, The Leafs got who they wanted.

As well as Kessel is playing, i think at this point the trade can be considered a tie. However, going forward, i still think Boston will win this trade, and i don't think it'll take more than a couple more seasons to convince you and others. Also, i think if you polled all the GM's in the league and offered them Kessel or Seguin and Co., all but one would say they'd take the latter. I think you know who the one would be.....

As for the "best thread in all of pickuphockey history"? Really, how long you been around? Cuz i have to tell you, this one is really actually quite lame compared to some i've been involved in!

quote:Originally posted by CrockOShight

C.I keep hearing that Phil Kessel is "streaky", "inconsistent" and "doesn't backcheck". Do the people writing these things even watch hockey? Phil Kessel has at least one point in something like 23 of his last 25 games dating back to last season. I'm going to call that "consistent". Like, a point a game player. Pretty much as consistent as you get. I'm not sure how that stigma got attached to Kessel. No one ever claimed Joe Thornton to be "streaky"; but he goes long stretches without points. If anything, I'd say Kessel is "not streaky". He doesn't often have the massive "stat-padding" 4 point games like Jumbo Joe. He gets 1, or 2 points, in pretty much every game he plays. Consistent.

Also, he has three straight 30 goal seasons. If he isn't "consistent", then who is? When does one become a "consistent" player? Which player is more consistent than Phil Kessel?

Back-checking. Kessel back-checks. Does anyone have any evidence of Kessel NOT back-checking? Where did this become a stereotype? I've seen him skate his ass off back into the odd man rush. He backchecks. Like, why do you say he doesn't back-check? Don't forget also that Kessel is a winger. His job is to cover the point men and be ready for break-outs. He does that extremely well. He plays his position very well.

I don't have the time, energy or desire to start digging for proof of these things. But, i will say, it's always been a widely known/thought of trait of Kessel's, that being, he's been somewhat of a defensive liability. Maybe this year he's improved? I dunno, i haven't seen enough of him. But, keep in mind, even if he wasn't, guys like you with your man crush, would point to the fact that he's paid to score and not defend, blah, blah, blah, anyway! As far as consistency / streakiness (is that a word?), if the best you can do is claim he's got 3 straight 30 goal seasons, then you don't understand the concept. I'm gonna explain this with a serious exageration, so don't freak out. If a guy gets 10 goals in 10 games, then none in the next 15, 10 in the next ten, none in the next 15 and 15 in the next 15 and none in the final 30+, he's got a 35 goal season. If he does this for 10 years, yes, he's a consistent 35 goal scorer. However, he's not necessarily a consistent goal scorer on a game to game or week to week basis throughout the season. What i think the point was that someone made was that it's likely he will hit a rut and go without points (or with far fewer than his pace now) for a period of games (prob more than once) this season. Remember when S. Stamkos was on pace for 150+ points last season for the first month? Remember him finishing with 150+ points? ME NEITHER!

quote:Originally posted by CrockOShight

Saucer Passes. Again, you're not giving Phil Kessel enough credit. Phil Kessel is one of the best saucer passers in the league. Tomas Plekanec is probably the best; but Phil Kessel is right there with him. Watch him on 3-on-2 and 2-on-2 rushes. He is an expert at finding the soft-spot in the offensive zone, and saucering a pass over to the trailer with speed. Phaneuf will tell you all about it.

This whole "he's the best saucer passer in the league" bit originally had me thinking you were a troll. C'mon, the guy's a goal scorer, and you're gonna put him up there with great passers??? Enough, i'm not wasting my time on this one.....

quote:Originally posted by CrockOShight

Yes Fat Elvis. I have a Kesselection. I have him in my pool too of course.

To summarize, I think people aren't giving Kessel enough credit here. The overwhelming mood seems to be "oh well, he's just streaky, and he's going to slow down. Boston rules." But, have you been watching the games?? Sure, he's on a tear, and yes he will slow down slightly. But, he won't go "ten games without a point" as suggested by the peanut gallery here. He's not going to "drop off the face of the earth". He'll probably finish with 35 goals and 70 points - with a possibility of 80 points in the year. That's a strong player - forgot about my one-handed typing.

Don't forget also that Kessel is 24-years-old. I don't think we are talking about a flash-in-the-pan type of player here. He has a massive career ahead of him. Give the guy some credit. Kessel is a great player. I would love to have him on my team.

So? Why are we still talking about this? Can we talk about the Oilers now?

I don't think anyone is calling Kessel a scrub or 3rd liner or anything like that. He's considered by many to be "God", and by the rest of us to be a sniper who can score 30-40 goals pretty consistently, though a liability defensively. There's no doubt he could change his game and improve on the opposite side of the puck to the point that he's far more defensively responsible than he is today, and that will change many peoples opinions. But, for now, from what i've seen, he's still more one dimensional than he is a two way guy!

BTW, further proof that perhaps he's improving overall is the fact that he registered a grand total of 1 goal and 1 assist in 6 games at the Olympics. Was he even a first liner for USA? I don't think so. Obviously there's a reason he wasn't playing top minutes, and it could very well have been the fact the coaching staff was worried about his defensive game??? Just saying....

Guest6786 ( )

Posted - 11/04/2011 : 14:01:08

quote:Originally posted by Guest2752

Ill be honest I havn't watched much of Kessel since he got traded to Toronto, but check out some of the games he played for Boston. This guy never backchecked and for that was constantly in Juliens doghouse. I can recall numerous games were Julien benched him.

and just how old was he when he was doing this non-backchecking? 19 - 20 years old? he was just a kid that loved to put the puck in the net. and he clearly has the talent to do that. Boston must have known about his back checking deficiencies when they drafted him. so then if this was a problem, why still pick him so high? it seems to me that maybe they just didn't have the patience, or even the right personnel, to work with him on it. or heck maybe Kessel at the time was just full of himself and wasn't willing to listen to anyone except himself, and Boston simply said "i give up, he won't listen."and in all honesty, his first year and a half in Toronto you could see those traits coming through.but in the last half of last season something changed, and he now seems willing to try and develop his game to more then just offense. will he ever be a great defensive player? probably not. but i bet he can be a good one. a lot better then what he was when he first came into the league.

I have a quick question to those who are justifying Kessel being a below average defensive player be wise of age.

What does it say about Tyler Seguin who is on pace for a PPG season who is also responsible defensively and a very good backchecker at the age of 19?

Hello, my name is Logic. I don't believe we have met.

Again, the argument is not is Kessel is or isnt a good player, it's who won the trade.

Guest8149 ( )

Posted - 11/04/2011 : 23:54:21

And how about Ryan Nugent-Hopkyns who is a point-a-game player and +4 so far this season, and barely 18 years old? This kid is for real, and while his offensive skills are obvious, watch him at the defensive side of the ice!

But getting back to the topic at hand (Phil Kessel), I think he's a terrific hockey player, and he's getting responsible at both ends of the ice. He could end up top ten in scoring this season, and +15 or more, but I would rather have what Boston got in the trade, but as always, time will tell who really won this trade!

I've always had a problem with people arguing about this trade as Kessel vs. Seguin and Co. As I think Duke pointed out, the trade was Kessel for draft picks, and I think that that is a key difference, despite the resistance Duke's been getting on that point.

If I trade Ovechkin for Sami Salo, and Ovechkin gets hit by a bus tomorrow, and Salo is never injured again and gets 50 pts a year for 3-4 more years, did I win the trade? No, I got (incredibly) lucky. No one would ever make that trade.

So, Burke decided that the statistical probability of the Leafs giving Boston a high pick, plus the probability of the draft picks being legitimate players was less that Kessels potential....at the time, a semi-legitimate line of thought.

I just dont understand why we're comparing these players, especially day by day. If Seguin pots a hatty tonight, did Boston win the trade again? What if Seguin pops an ACL? Was Burke suddenly a genius?

Its one of those trades that we can argue about forever, but in the end we have to wait...until the end.

quote:Originally posted by LunchboxIf I trade Ovechkin for Sami Salo, and Ovechkin gets hit by a bus tomorrow, and Salo is never injured again and gets 50 pts a year for 3-4 more years, did I win the trade? No, I got (incredibly) lucky. No one would ever make that trade.

the odds of that trade actually happening are better than Salo never getting injured again.

He's already got a hatty, and it's the second period. Doesn't change my opinion of the trade though, Boston STILL wins it.

But this proves my point a little...lets say you didnt think Boston was the winner...how many Seguin hattricks does it take to change your mind? Will it ever?

I think a more interesting question than Kessel vs Seguin, is what defines the winner of any trade, the best player at the time of the trade? The best player in the long run? The best stats? or the player who helps his team the most?

How ironic is it that a couple hours after i post kessels vs Seguins stats, Seguin drives them up bigtime

Great game by the youngster, he is going to be a great one for Boston, no doubt about it.

Big reality check for the leafs , its time to re-group and bear down. I hope the leafs learned tonight that it takes more then just showing up to beat the best team in the East, even if they were 15 th in the east coming in to tonight.

This good old fashioned A$$ kicking may actually help the leafs in the long run, it will surely teach them to be more prepared going into a game againist one of the leagues best teams.

Sorry i`m rambling on about the leafs team in a Trade debate forum...the biggest problem the leafs face now is....who the hell is going to play in goal next game ??